ALLC : Pisa meetings : 5-6 April 2002

The mid-term meeting of the ALLC Committee is to take place in Pisa on the morning of Friday 5 April 2002. It will be followed by the planned 'Road Map' meeting, which will take place over the afternoon of Friday 5th and all day on Saturday 6th.

This web site contains information about the meetings, and will be updated to contain agendas and tasks to be completed ahead of the meetings, as well as relevant information about accommodation and travel.


Timetable

TimeActivityParticipants
Thu 4 AprArrival in PisaAll



Fri 5 Apr

9.30-12.30ALLC Committee MtgALLC Committee



14.00-15.30Road Map 1 : LinguisticsAll
16.00-17.30Road Map 2 : Literary StudiesAll



Sat 6 Apr

9.00-10.30Road Map 3 : Bibliography & textual criticismAll
11.00-12.30Road Map 4 : Manuscripts, libraries & archivesAll
14.00-15.30Road Map 5 : Visual imaging, multimedia & performance studiesAll
16.00-17.30Road Map 6 : Methodologies, multi-disciplines and digital scholarshipAll
17.30-18.30Road Map 7 : Review & ConclusionsAll



Sun 7 AprDepartAll


Information for participants

  • 'Road Map' meeting, in preparation for the 2002 Conference

  • ALLC Committee [link to follow]

  • Accommodation & travel [link to follow]

  • Road Map meeting

    The suggested format of the meeting is to identify a number of broad subject areas, and to ask small groups of particpants to prepare a summary on the state of things in their assigned subject area, in consultation with each other and with colleagues more widely as appropriate. In the RM meeting, each group would present its summary and group members would lead discussion. A 'summary' is proposed because in the time available it would be unrealistic to expect or ask for more.

    The purpose of the Road Map meeting is to assist in preparations for the ALLC-ACH2002 Conference in Tübingen in July, with its theme of 'New Directions in Humanities Computing'. The meeting is scheduled to follow immediately a meeting of the ALLC Committee, but in order to broaden the range of contributions to the RM meeting the ACH members of the 2002 Programme Committee have also been invited to participate. Invitations may also be extended to one or two additional individuals. All participants will be expected to contribute to the meeting in two ways:

    One person is asked to act as the 'co-ordinator' for each group, and if they are able to provide a group report, that would be particularly valuable.

    It is proposed that the broad questions addressed in each summary should be:

    Orthogonal to this, each summary might specifically cover:

    The broadly grouped subject areas proposed, along with suggested 'allocations' of participants, is as follows:

    Subject area
    Assignments
    Linguistics+
    Burr, Hunyadi*
    Literary studies+
    Opas-Hänninen, Fortier
    Bibliography & textual criticism
    Dawson*, Ott
    Manuscripts, libraries & archives
    Ore*, Hockey, Deegan
    Visual imaging, multimedia & performance studies
    Anderson, Hughes*, Smith
    Methodologies, multi-disciplines and digital scholarship
    McCarty*, Short
    + the subject of 'linguistics in literary studies' is an important one with many new developments; it needs to be included in one or both of the broader linguistic and literary groupings
    * The asterisked member of each assignment group is asked to coordinate the presentation for the session in question by agreeing in advance with the other members of the group how the subject area will be presented.
    There will be a review session at the end, led by Antonio Zampolli and Lou Burnard, who have agreed to act as 'summarising rapporteurs' for the meeting.

    David Robey will chair the meeting, and will as a major outcome prepare a briefing document for the conference, to be included in the book of abstracts, perhaps as an introduction. In order to prepare this briefing document, he will require from all participants immediately after the meeting word-processed summaries of their contributions to the meeting. The coordinator of each session is asked to provide an overall summary of the discussion on the subject area in question. This will have to be done to a tight timetable, in order to meet the deadline for the publication of the conference abstract.

    After the conference, in the light of the conference proceedings and particularly the proposed Round Table on 'New Directions' (see below), this briefing document could be revised for publication, and would provide a launching pad for preparation of the 'Survey' book (see below).


    Conference 2002 : Tuebingen 24-28 July 2002

    Further developments from the Road Map meeting, at the Tübingen conference and beyond:

    Round table on 'New Directions'

    This would be a natural follow-up to the Road Map meeting. The panel for the round table might best consist of a sub-set of those involved in the meeting. Each would be asked, perhaps in consultation with the other members of their Road Map group, to attend and discuss papers and posters in the conference relevant to the area of their road map summary, and then to present a brief revised summary - i.e. revised in the light of the conference papers - for discussion in the round table.

    If this PC like the idea, this round table might make an effective closing session for the conference, perhaps as a plenary. This is, of course, a matter for the PC.

    The revised summaries might form the basis, with appropriate addition and polishing, either of a separate publication, or of a special issue of L&LC.


    Round table on Funding Strategies

    Following the discussions in Finland, Antonio has already made some approaches and has had a generally positive response. Prospective participants include representatives from:

    Other official bodies that might be represented include the NSF from the US, and research councils of other European countries, e.g. the AHRB from the UK. However, the panel should not be too large, and it might be best to include as panelists two or three members of the humanities computing community who would be good at, and unafraid of, asking 'difficult' questions. Suggested names include John Unsworth and Susan Hockey. Someone from continental Europe would provide a good balance; Wilhelm Ott might suggest a name from Germany, or there might be someone from elsewhere, e.g. Scandinavia.

    The emphasis in this round table would be on current and future strategy for research funding, and the relation of this to new directions in humanities computing. It is likely that 'cultural heritage' and 'content' would be important topics, as well as the development of humanities computing in relation to other science and technology research areas.

    It is proposed that this round table should be chaired by Prof Zampolli. He would give a short introduction to the session, and introduce the speakers. He will plan the session with the invited panellists, and ensure that they are briefed on what is expected of them, and what themes are to be covered.

    If senior figures from the proposed funding agencies are to be invited, it would be a good idea to have the round table as a plenary session. Given the desired close link between this round table and the one on New Directions, it might be appropriate to end the conference with these two round tables in succession, although there would be a risk of poor attendance if the round table on funding were left right to the end. David will discuss this with the PC.


    'Survey' publication

    One of the ideas discussed at previous Commitee meetings and elsewhere is the preparation and publication of a 'Survey of the state of the art in Humanities Computing'. The Road Map meeting and the 2002 Conference, in particular the proposed Round Table on 'New Directions', would provide a good starting point in preparing such a publication.

    The idea originated with Antonio, arising in part from the great success of the Survey of the State of the Art in Human Language Technology, edited by Antonio Zampolli and Giovanni Varile, published by CUP and Giardini Editori, Pisa in 1998. The survey was carried out with the help of funding from the European Commission and the NSF. (A revised version is in preparation.)

    If we were to adopt the same model, we would need to:

    The Editorial Board would consist principally of the people responsible for each chapter, who would have the responsibility of writing the introduction to 'their' chapter, and commissioning and co-ordinating the material to be included within each chapter.

    Antonio and Harold would be willing to take on the roles of joint Managing Editors.

    In fact Antonio has funds he could use for at least one meeting of the Editorial Board and for the printing, so if the ALLC Committee were prepared to meet some of the costs, it would be possible to go ahead with the Survey even if the proposal for funding were not successful. It may be appropriate or necessary, for example, to pay meet some of the admin costs of the Editor-in-Chief.

    It is likely that the chapters of the Survey would be somewhat similar to the subject areas developed in the Road Map meeting and the Round Table at the Conference. If the Committee favours this venture, we could use the mid-term Committee meeting/Road Map meeting to do some of the planning.



    Resp: Harold Short
    Status: Working document
    Date: 30 Jan 2001